compareing a radicalized political Islamists to a anarchist is stupid now compareing them to the crusadiers is more accurate or the fundamentis cristins that have bombed palined parenthood teach them me my self and i but thay cant cuz it cintradics there holy text

I see the point, that Caliphate dreamers are much like the Crusaders, they both wanted/want to use violence to spread their religion, and both were/are official State Religions, but the leaders of both the Crusaders and the radical Islamists created/are creating their own narrative out of the same Holy Book.

Libertarians aren't morally obligated to invite Christian Crusaders into their country either...

Luckily, there aren't any of those around these days.

People who destroy and kill in the U.S. are guilty of crimes no matter who's name they are destroying and killing in.

I see the point, that Caliphate dreamers are much like the Crusaders, they both wanted/want to use violence to spread their religion, and both were/are official State Religions, but the leaders of both the Crusaders and the radical Islamists created/are creating their own narrative out of the same Holy Book.

Libertarians aren't morally obligated to invite Christian Crusaders into their country either...

Luckily, there aren't any of those around these days.

People who destroy and kill in the U.S. are guilty of crimes no matter who's name they are destroying and killing in.

jeff thats fine logic there and there still are crusders thay go to afia and get lgbt people killed do thay get convitced on crimes agent humanty when thay come back to the usa no fundemist cristis are the bugest therat ti this country thay want there rejoin to be the law of the land thay lie and say this country was founded by cristians when a lage amout where diests thay want a throcy not freedom

You don't understand what I say. You've proven that a billion times now.

I would love to hear your libertarian argument to say that Austria is doing wrong. Something more than pointing out that Muslims aren't a race. (Actually they are for the purpose of this discussion because they're predominantly Arabics) And the whole thrust against Muslims is aimed at Arabics.

So tell us how Austria is wrong, if in fact you weren't just babbling again.

jeff thats fine logic there and there still are crusders thay go to afia and get lgbt people killed do thay get convitced on crimes agent humanty when thay come back to the usa no fundemist cristis are the bugest therat ti this country thay want there rejoin to be the law of the land thay lie and say this country was founded by cristians when a lage amout where diests thay want a throcy not freedom

There are individual radicals and anarchists in every belief system, but that is not the same thing as state sponsored Christian Crusades or state sponsored Islamist terrorism.

Something more than pointing out that Muslims aren't a race. (Actually they are for the purpose of this discussion because they're predominantly Arabics) And the whole thrust against Muslims is aimed at Arabics.

Most of the Muslims that went to Austria are Turks, not Arabs, and there are Christian Turks and no doubt atheist Turks as well.

What people are against is terrorism. They also don't want to be absorbed by a foreign culture and government.

The complaint of the Austrians is that these specific Turks didn't come to Austria to become Austrians, they came to change Austria into a Turkish Islamic state.

On the most basic level, it's tribal warfare, the tribe of Austrians against the tribe of Turkish Islamists.

Libertarians oppose tribal warfare, but generally feel that its the invaders who are in the wrong.

One of the root causes of this sort of non-assimilation that leads to tribal warfare is the "progressive" welfare state that allows people to come into countries and live without working.

Not only does it create resentment, but it hinders assimilation... If you have to get a job in your new country, you have to work with the native people and get to know them, while they also get to know you. That way, you can discover that they are actually humans and not "others".

There are individual radicals and anarchists in every belief system, but that is not the same thing as state sponsored Christian Crusades or state sponsored Islamist terrorism.

Try to start feeling better about yourself. My new thread on Denmark might help if you interpret it the way Americans are supposed to interpret happiness in other socially responsible countries. fooches and kisses for you!

Right to travel. Under libertarianism, governments simply do not have the right to prevent anyone from going anywhere.

Now, if the owners of the land those mosques were built on refused to sell it to the Muslims, then the Muslims could not build their mosques; they would have to look elsewhere.

But they would certainly find a place somewhere in France to sell them some land.

That's called a voluntary exchange between two willing parties.

Regardless of absolutely every other factor (even citizenship), no government has the right to prevent a voluntary exchange.

Preventing a voluntary exchange is force, and aggression.

Certainly, putting people off land they already own is even more egregious aggression.

I don't accept your pretense that Muslims won't be able to buy land to build their mosques on. That's just a dodge you've thought up to evade my questions.

All you seem to be saying is that Austria will benefit by taking un-libertarian action against Muslims.

Quote:

And they will benefit by it.

It's also wrong and unlibertarian for them to do it.

You must have been typing while you were visiting your vulcan world again.

Grow up Oppo, your wasting a reasonably good brain. A brain that may come close to equalling ahhell's brain but far surpassing the Chief's walnut size excuse for brain matter. Try talking more with ahhell, if you can get him to pay attention to you?

Inviting people into your country who want to take over and make everyone less free is not something that libertarians are morally obligated to do.

Exactly! It doesn't make sense to say that to be libertarian we must sit back and let people work to take our freedoms away. We're allowed to protect our freedoms. We don't have to allow people to be free to take our freedoms away. That's not how libertarianism works.